If we win the coin toss, Rexy won't be expecting an onside kick. As far as I know BB has never opened a game this way, so it should come as a suprise. If we lose the toss Rexy most likely chooses to recieve. Here are the reasons I think this should be done:

1) If we recover it's a huge momentum boost and moral boost to start the game. It would mean starting with the ball in both halves.

2) We want to avoid big returns from Smith.

3) Our kicker can't put it very deep anyway.

4) Their D would have to come out early (would be off balance) and might commit to stop the run on the first play, so we go play action and hit someone deep on the first play.

5) Our D will be prepared for the possibility we don't recover. They most likely go run on first play and we are ready for it with a run blitz.

6) We stop them for a loss on their first play, and starting field position is not much worse than if we had kicked deep.

7) Shows faith in BB's D. D will be amped and ready to stop them for a 3 and out.

8) If they should score 7 it will not hurt the D mentally as they know they had a short field. Also our O has immediate urgency to score and gets fired up early.

9) We don't stop many drives between the 20's anyway.

10) It would be a serious momentum/moral problem if they had an 80 yd scoring drive to start the game.

So let me get this straight you want to give a team that tends to win when they score first the ball at the 40 just because you want to keep it out of Smith hands and that there is a slim chance that we could recover? Boy I hope they fire BB and hire you because that's the most brilliant thing I've heard since we shouldn't cut Brady's hair because he'd be like Sampson

This was in S.M.Y.'s Globe chat today...and I thought it to be ridiculous there too. I mean, if it worked it would be great, but I don't think BB would ever take this type of low percentage risk to start the biggest game of the year.

So IF we onside kick to start the game, and IF we recover, and IF the jets D comes out off balance, they MIGHT over-commit to the run on the first play (for what reason I have no idea, but I'll roll with you), and the Pats MIGHT try a play-action pass, and Brady MIGHT hit on a deep pass play, which MIGHT turn into a touchdown...seems like a great idea.

So let me get this straight you want to give a team that tends to win when they score first the ball at the 40 just because you want to keep it out of Smith hands and that there is a slim chance that we could recover? Boy I hope they fire BB and hire you because that's the most brilliant thing I've heard since we shouldn't cut Brady's hair because he'd be like SampsonPosted by PatsEng

Would be nice if you people addressed the reasoning given in the original post (if you read it that is).

With 4 minutes left in the first quarter of last week's Cardinals-Seahawks game, Arizona's Neil Rackers booted a short but high 'pooch' kick that was quickly recovered by the kicking team. The kick recovery was worth a very considerable +0.12 WP. The Cardinals went on to score a touchdown, taking a 14-0 lead. How smart are onside gambles like this?

Onside kicks in the NFL are successful 26% of the time. It’s true, but it’s also very misleading. Onside kick success rates are very dependent on whether the receiving team is expecting one.As you can see in the chart below, a plot of the frequency of onside kicks by win probability (WP), teams don’t usually attempt onside kicks unless they’re pretty desperate. Teams typically attempt them when they have less than a 10% chance of winning. Even then, they only do it about 26% of the time.The effect of surprise on the success of an onside kick is pretty big. The chart below plots success rate by WP. The less a team is expecting an onside kick, the more successful it is. When teams are expecting it, when WP is about 0.15 and below, the success rate is about 20%. But when teams aren’t expecting it, the success rate averages 60%. (There are 103 onside kicks classified as 'surprise' in the data, which results in a standard error of +/- 4.8%.)

What does this mean for surprise onside kicks? Are they worth the risk given a 60% success rate? We can answer that question with an analysis based on www.advancednflstats.com/2008/08/expected-points.html">Expected Points, the average of next points scored for first downs at each yard line on the field. In the following example, I’ll solve for what the break-even success rate would be for an unexpected onside kick.

The EP for a failed onside attempt is -2.1 pts, and the EP for a success is +1.2 pts. At first glance it appears onside kicks are always losing propositions. But don’t forget that you’ve always got to kickoff somehow, and a normal kickoff averages -0.7 pts for the kicking team.

Let’s call the success rate ‘x’. Solving for the break-even success rate, where the combined expected points of an onside kick equal that of a normal kick, we get:

1.2x + (1-x)(-2.1) = -0.71.2x - 2.1 +2.1x = -0.73.3x = 1.4x = 42.4%

So 60% is a lot more than the break even success rate of 42%, and as long as a team has the element of surprise, onside kicks are well worth the risk—at least under ‘normal’ football conditions. Late in games, however, depending on the score and time remaining, we can’t use the EP analysis anymore. We need to turn to win probability analysis, something I’ll look at www.advancednflstats.com/2009/10/onside-kicks-2-win-probability-analysis.html">in part 2 of this article.

The catch is that teams can’t do this very often. The key is that the onside attempt is unexpected. As soon as a team is known for sneaky onside kicks, its success rate will go down. But this isn’t such a bad thing. As opponents are forced to respect the threat of an onside kick, their normal kick return blocking will suffer, allowing overall net kickoff distance to improve. Ultimately, there would be an equilibrium, making life more difficult for the receiving team.

One Important factor cited in the clips from above is that future opponents must respect the possibility that you might do a suprise onside kick. They then must put in hands people instead of blockers. Since our current kicker does not have much of a leg for kickoffs, this would help give the D better starting field position on kickoffs.

This was in S.M.Y.'s Globe chat today...and I thought it to be ridiculous there too. I mean, if it worked it would be great, but I don't think BB would ever take this type of low percentage risk to start the biggest game of the year.Posted by Wingnut11

As you can see from the article in the previous post, it is infact not a "low percentage" play. The fact that BB has never done it increases the chances. The fact that people think that BB would never do it also increases the chances for success. Had alot of time to work on it this week. Another factor is that we have a new kicker. Who would trust a new kicker with such a play? Our guys are better than their guys so lets go for it.

Onside kicks have around a 25% success rate. Even though that goes up towards 40% with surprise kicks why would you want to start a game by handing over field position to your opponent?Posted by Evil2010

Evil,

Where did you get your 40% statistic? The article above states 60% for suprise onside kicks. Pulling numbers out of your hedonistic rear end again?

Does anybody remember the name of the fomer Lions (I think) coach who took the wind in overtime instead of the ball?Posted by p-mike

No, but I could see it if there were 40+ mile an hour winds and the opposing team was mostly a passing team and you have a good D. They will start at their 20. Passing will be very difficult. FG will be nearly impossible. Then their punt will stink and you can kick a 50 yard FG on first down (JK).

The rule about deferring has changed this year. You can defer your choice to the second half. It hasn't happened yet in the NFL, but if we defer and the Jets elected to kick, we would receive the kick in the second half as well. I wonder which Jet dummy is going out for the coin toss?

"5) Our D will be prepared for the possibility we don't recover. Their offense will have to come out early and will be rushed into service. They most likely go run on first play and we are ready for it with a run blitz."

There were many parts of your post that had me scratching my head but this part stood out the most.

If the Jets elected to receive the kickoff, wouldn't they expect to start the game on offense??

So, if NE onside kicks and the Jets recover, why on earth would "their offense have to come out early and be rushed into service"??

"5) Our D will be prepared for the possibility we don't recover. Their offense will have to come out early and will be rushed into service. They most likely go run on first play and we are ready for it with a run blitz." There were many parts of your post that had me scratching my head but this part stood out the most. If the Jets elected to receive the kickoff, wouldn't they expect to start the game on offense?? So, if NE onside kicks and the Jets recover, why on earth would "their offense have to come out early and be rushed into service"??Posted by siestafiesta

Siesta,

You are correct. I guess it was a bit of a brain tart. I was thinking that because there wouldn't be a return or touchback the offense would have to take the field sooner, but I was thinking dumb thoughts.